from the bye-bye-1960s-classics dept

Say goodbye to the musical hits of the 50s and 60s, if you like that sort of thing and listen via online services. Chances are they may start to disappear, as the places where you now get your streaming music realize they need to protect themselves against a possible massive liability. As we've covered for some time, there have been a few lawsuits filed recently over the licensing status of pre-1972 sound recordings. There's a lot of history here, but a short explanation is that in 1909, when Congress redid copyright law, it didn't think that sound recordings (then a relatively new concept) were copyrightable subject matter. Of course, in the years following that, as the "music business" turned into the "recording industry" pressure mounted by that industry led to a bunch of state regulations and common law creating copyright or copyright-like rights for sound recordings.

With the 1976 Copyright Act, rather than "federalizing" all sound recording copyrights, Congress basically left all pre-1972 recordings under those state laws, while effectively wiping out those laws for everything else. Since then, all copyright is under federal copyright law, but old sound recordings are still subject to those state laws. But those state laws were somewhat limited -- and at no point did anyone seriously believe that there was any sort of public performance licensing required for those recordings. Well, not until a few years ago, when some big record labels started searching under the couch cushions for other ways to squeeze money out of online services. They'd already convinced Congress to force internet streaming sites to pay compulsory performance royalties (at insanely high rates), even though radio doesn't have to pay those.

But that wasn't enough. So, they started to focus on those pre-1972 recordings and said that while those aren't subject to the compulsory rates, perhaps they could hold them hostage and force the streaming sites to pay insane amounts for them. The streaming sites, rightfully, pointed out that none of those state laws really had a public performance right as a part of it, and thus there was no licensing required to perform those works and... eventually the lawsuitsbegan.

And now additional lawsuits are starting to show up -- and you can expect a lot more of them. A holding company called Zenbu Magazines has sued Apple's Beats Music along with Google, Songza, Slacker, Rdio, Sony and Grooveshark using the same basic template as those earlier lawsuits. Zenbu claims to hold the copyrights for recordings by the Flying Burrito Brothers, Hot Tuna and New Riders of the Purple Sage. And it wants to get paid. Big time.

In fact, Zenbu is looking to make this a class action lawsuit, meaning that the holders of lots of other copyrights on pre-1972 recordings may pile on as well -- and the potential liability facing all of these streaming services could quickly grow to astronomical numbers.

Given that, it seems quite likely that at least some, if not all, of these services are going to quickly realize that their best move is to simply remove all pre-1972 recordings from their catalog. History for music may end in 1972 thanks to these self-defeating lawsuits from copyright holders desperate to squeeze extra money out of these services. It's hard to see how that benefits culture in the slightest.

from the a-big-shakeup dept

A year ago, a bunch of folks in the recording industry hit on its latest strategy to squeeze more money out of services playing music: upset decades of settled copyright law, and pretend that pre-1972 works were subject to public performance rights. Suddenly lawsuits started flying like crazy, most directed at Sirius XM, with a few directed at Pandora. The key issue is the fact that pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered by federal copyright law, but a patchwork of (very messy) state laws and common law. Those state laws were never considered to have included public performance rights, but now people are going back to pretend they did. Of course, there would be a simple way to deal with this: just make those recordings subject to federal copyright laws, but the RIAA has fought hard against this.

The judge, Colleen McMahon, acknowledges that this ruling completely upsets decades of accepted practice, but doesn't seem too bothered by it all:

Of course, the conspicuous lack of any jurisprudential history confirms that not paying
royalties for public performances of sound recordings was an accepted fact of life in the
broadcasting industry for the last century. So does certain testimony cited by Sirius from record
industry executives, artists and others, who argued vociferously before Congress that it was unfair
for them to operate in an environment in which they were paid nothing when their sound recordings
were publicly performed.... That they were
paid no royalties was a matter of statutory exemption under federal law; that they demanded no
royalties under the common law when their product as ineligible for federal copyright protection
is, in many ways, inexplicable.

But acquiescence by participants in the recording industry in a status quo where recording
artists and producers were not paid royalties while songwriters were does not show that they lacked
an enforceable right under the common law - only that they failed to act on it.

Instead, she notes that the reason this is only coming up now is because Congress only created a performance right for digital music recently. That doesn't really make much sense when you think about it. If the industry was really sitting on this potential goldmine of performance royalties for decades, wouldn't it have made use of it before now?

Instead, the judge defaults to a purely maximalist approach, saying that absent any specific exemptions, we should assume that common law copyright in New York covers just about every damn thing.

Modern federal law supports the notion that an express carve-out is required in order to
circumscribe the bundle of rights appurtenant to copyright

That should raise some serious First Amendment questions. In federal copyright law, the Supreme Court has argued that the First Amendment conflict is generally resolved through exceptions to copyright -- including those established in common law, like fair use. Yet here, the court is basically saying, unless an exemption is clearly stated, everything is covered. That's very troubling.

Of course, it's likely that this, like the California cases, will be appealed, and it will all eventually end up before the Supreme Court. But, in the interim, don't be surprised if "golden oldies," including pretty much all music from pre-1972, start disappearing from a variety of services. Good job, recording industry, you may succeed in driving the classics into total obscurity.

from the convinced-by-the-other-ruling dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about how Sirius XM had lost its case concerning the public performance rights over pre-1972 sound recordings by the band The Turtles. As we noted, this ruling effectively upset decades of consensus about public performance rights for pre-1972 works. When that ruling came out, we noted that the judge, in a nearly identical case brought by the RIAA, appeared to be leaning in the opposite direction. It appears that the judge, Mary Strobel, read the other ruling and found it convincing enough to lean back in the other direction. While not a final determination in the case, Strobel has issued a ruling (pdf) that makes it pretty clear that Sirius XM is likely to lose, based on her agreement with that other ruling.

Having considered the additional authority, the
papers submitted and arguments of counsel, the court is persuaded that it should
change its tentative ruling.

The ruling itself is more of an essay of "on the one hand, on the other hand" arguments, rather than a typical judicial ruling (in many ways making it more readable), with the judge more or less suggesting that she's not entirely comfortable with this outcome, but that based on the plain language of California's state copyright law, this is the best way to read the law.

Of course, the real mess here is because of the different treatment of pre-1972 recordings. Congress should have fixed this years ago by just making pre-1972 recordings subject to federal copyright law. Except... the recording industry has actually fought hard against this. The hypocrisy here is huge. While the recording industry has fought so hard against making pre-1972 sound recordings subject to federal copyright laws, now they suddenly want aspects of federal copyright law (like public performance rights which did not exist under previous laws) to apply to those very same works. If Congress made it so those works were under federal copyright, there wouldn't be an issue and all these works would be treated identically. But the truth is that the RIAA wants to keep these works out of federal copyright law to use them as a weapon against internet innovation. With rulings like these, it can hold companies like Pandora hostage, since those works wouldn't be subject to compulsory rates. As always, it's all about the RIAA seeking to hold back innovative services unless they'll go bankrupt in paying the RIAA.

from the activist-judges... dept

We recently wrote about district court judge Philip Gutierrez ruling against Sirius XM on the issue of streaming pre-1972 recordings. As we noted at the time, the ruling appeared to upset what was considered more or less a settled issue. Pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered by federal copyright laws, but rather by a hodgepodge of state laws (and common law), but those have been entirely focused on reproduction/distribution and not on public performance. But this ruling changed all that. Sirius XM, of course, has already made it clear that it's appealing the ruling, and on the other side, the victors in last week's ruling, Flo & Eddie, have already moved to sue Pandora as well.

While I tried to express how much this ruling upsets what had been considered pretty much solid law, law professor Tyler Ochoa does an astounding job actually detailing the history and just what a big change this ruling is, calling it a "seismic" ruling on the scale of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Here's just a snippet, though you really ought to read the whole thing, detailing historical case law that this ruling totally upends:

...in the early days of radio, sound recording copyright owners also tried to use state law to restrict unauthorized broadcasts of sound recordings (which, as explained above, were not eligible for federal copyright). In 1937, in Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, 194 A. 631 (1937), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that state common law prevented the unauthorized broadcast of phonograph records (when the legend “Not Licensed for Radio Broadcast” was printed on the records); but in 1940, in RCA Mfg. Co. v. Whiteman, 114 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1940), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Learned Hand, held that common-law copyright prevented only the duplication of a sound recording, and that sale of phonograph records exhausted any common-law property right to prevent the unauthorized broadcast of the recording (notwithstanding the same restrictive legend). The Supreme Court denied certiorari, which effectively meant that broadcasters did not have to pay royalties to sound recording copyright owners to play their records on the radio. (Broadcasters still had to pay royalties to musical work copyright owners, under federal copyright law.)

... when sound recordings were added to the federal copyright act in 1972, Congress likewise limited the exclusive rights that were provided to sound recording copyright owners. Authors of most copyrightable works receive five exclusive rights: the right to reproduce the work, to adapt or prepare derivative works based on the work, to publicly distribute copies of the work, to publicly perform the work, and to publicly display the work. But broadcasters had enough lobbying power to block any action in Congress if it required them to pay more royalties. As a result, Congress gave sound recording copyright owners only the right to reproduce and distribute copies of the sound recording, and to prepare derivative works (by electronic manipulation of the sounds recorded, not by imitation or simulation). Congress did not give sound recording copyright owners any right to publicly perform their works. (The policy argument was that radio airplay served as free advertising for the sale of phonograph records.)

In other words, contrary to what you'll hear today from the record labels and copyright maximalists, this ruling was not obvious or about Sirius XM, Pandora and others ripping off artists. This was actually about them upending what had been considered completely settled law. It was only in 1995 that Congress first established that copyright had any sort of "public performance" exclusivity -- and then only for post-1972 recordings (remember, the recording industry itself has fought quite hard to exempt pre-1972 sound recordings from other aspects of federal copyright law) and only on digital streaming. So, to argue that pre-1972 state and common law somehow was intended to cover such a public performance right is almost impossible to fathom. Yet that's what the court ruled.

And the impact could be immense. Beyond just Sirius and Pandora, it could hit a lot of others as well. In a big way, in part by undermining the very foundations of the DMCA safe harbors.

The ruling is a huge victory for sound recording copyright owners, which can use the ruling not only to negotiate higher negotiated rates for public performance of pre-February 15, 1972 sound recordings, but may also use such older recordings as leverage for negotiating higher rates for post-February 15, 1972 sound recordings. (Such negotiation tactics might be deemed to be copyright misuse, but it is unclear whether state law will recognize this federally-recognized defense.) Moreover, nothing in the decision limits the state-law violations to public performance by means of digital audio transmission, so the decision gives sound recording copyright owners the general public performance right in pre-February 15, 1972 sound recordings that they have always craved, but that was previously denied to them under federal law (and was assumed not to exist in state law under Whiteman). That means that traditional AM/FM broadcasters and television broadcasters, who are expressly exempt under federal law with respect to post-February 15, 1972 sound recordings, can expect to be sued next.

Sound recording copyright owners can also use the ruling to go after internet service providers. Section 512 of the federal Copyright Act provides that internet service providers are not liable for infringements committed by their users, so long as the service provider promptly complies with the “notice-and-takedown” provisions of that section. But because Section 301(c) states that pre-February 15, 1972 sound recording copyrights are not preempted by the federal act, sound recording copyright owners have been suing internet service providers under state law, arguing that service providers are liable for reproduction and electronic distribution of pre-February 15, 1972 recordings under state law, and that the limitation of liability provided by federal law does not apply. Existing court decisions so far are split, with the New York Appellate Division holding that Section 512 does not apply to pre-February 15, 1972 sound recordings, because of the express terms of Section 301(c); while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that Section 512 does apply to pre-February 15, 1972 sound recordings, notwithstanding Section 301(c).

In the meantime, Ochoa notes, expect "oldies" to start disappearing from lots of different services as companies seek to limit their liability. Funny how yet another copyright ruling is likely to make music even more scarce.

from the this-could-be-quite-a-mess dept

Last year, we wrote about the growing list of lawsuits against Sirius XM concerning the legal rights over pre-1972 recordings. As we've discussed, pre-1972 sound recordings are not under federal copyright law (for historical reasons too convoluted to go into now), but are covered under a hodgepodge of messy state copyright laws. Historically, those state laws have been focused on reproduction and distribution and not public performance. Furthermore, terrestrial radio stations have always been allowed to broadcast music without paying performance royalties (though they do pay songwriters/publishers). Post-1972 recordings can be streamed at statutory rates for non-interactive streaming (interactive streaming is a whole different game). It's a bit of a mess, but based on all of this Sirius XM (and Pandora and others) felt fairly confident that they did not have to separately license public performance rights for pre-1972 recordings. There had been no issue about this at all, until the lawsuits started flooding in last year.

And, in a ruling this week, the judge has... ruled against Sirius XM in a manner that may force Sirius and Pandora to eventually have to pay out big. This lawsuit was the first one against Sirius, filed by Flo & Eddie, claiming that their California state copyrights were violated. The court basically found that, because California copyright law says that the copyright holder has "exclusive ownership" of the copyright, that includes public performance rights, despite no further explanation in the law designating that as an exclusive right under California's copyright.

In short, the judge takes a very expansive "property rights" view of the situation, and assumes that California's copyright law basically restricts everything.

Commonly, to have
“exclusive ownership” in something is to possess and control it and to not share that right to
possess and control with others. See THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE 619, 1260 (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 5th ed. 2011) (defining “exclusive” and
“ownership”). The California legislature defines “ownership” generally in the Civil Code in a
manner consistent with the word’s usual and ordinary meaning—“the right of one or more
persons to possess and use [a thing] to the exclusion of others.” Cal. Civ. Code § 654. Thus, at
base, Flo & Eddie has the right to possess and use its sound recordings and prevent others from
possessing and using them. The plain meaning of having “exclusive ownership” in a sound
recording is having the right to use and possess the recording to the exclusion of others. There is
nothing in that phrase to suggest that the legislature intended to exclude any right or use of the
sound recording from the concept of “exclusive ownership.”

The legislature does include a limitation on the ownership right in the statute’s text, “the
most reliable indicator of legislative intent.” See Esberg, 28 Cal. 4th at 268. An author has
exclusive ownership in his or her sound recording “against all persons except one who
independently makes or duplicates another sound recording that does not directly or indirectly
recapture the actual sounds fixed in such prior recording, but consists entirely of an independent
fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate the sounds contained in
the prior sound recording.” Cal. Civ. Code § 980(a)(2) (emphasis added). In other words,
ownership of a sound recording does not include the exclusive right to make “covers” (i.e.,
recording the song with new instruments) – any person can make a sound recording based on a
copyrighted recording, without the permission of the owner, so long as they produce the sounds
independently rather than recapture the actual sounds in the copyrighted recording.

Construing the meaning of “exclusive ownership” in context with the rest of § 980(a)(2),
which lists the above exception to the ownership right, the Court infers that the legislature did
not intend to further limit ownership rights, otherwise it would have indicated that intent
explicitly. Because the statute lists an exception, the Court should enlist the “familiar rule of
construction…[that] where exceptions to a general rule are specified by statute, other exceptions
are not to be implied or presumed.” Geertz v. Ausonio, 4 Cal. App. 4th 1363, 1370 (1992)
(citing In re Michael G., 44 Cal. 3d 283, 291 (1988). Courts should “presume the Legislature
included all the exceptions it intended to create.” Id. (citing Reynolds v. Reynolds, 54 Cal. 2d
669, 681 (1960)). If § 980(a)(2) had granted “exclusive ownership” in sound recordings without
a listed exception, the argument that some limitations on property rights were already inherent in
the concept of sound recording ownership might have been more persuasive to the Court. See
Opp. 6:21-7:4, 8:25-9:2. However, by finding it necessary to specify an excepted right to
ownership in a sound recording, the legislature conveyed that limitations on ownership did not
live within the concept itself, rather they required elucidation.

Accordingly, the Court’s textual reading of § 980(a)(2), giving the words “their usual and
ordinary meaning and construing them in context[,]” is that the legislature intended ownership of
a sound recording in California to include all rights that can attach to intellectual property, save
the singular, expressly-stated exception for making “covers” of a recording.

Sirius XM pointed out the legal problems with this, in that California law did not have a public performance right, and thus the court is effectively making up a new right under to bolt onto California's copyright law, but the judge isn't buying it. Sirius further pointed out that California's copyright law was designed to highlight what rights remained under its copyright law after the federalization of copyright for sound recordings, but again the judge isn't buying it.

It's inevitable that Sirius will appeal this ruling so it will be a while before we see where this actually ends up. Furthermore, in one of the other cases against Sirius, brought by the RIAA, it appears that the judge is leaning in the exact opposite direction. So, this situation is far from over.

from the respect? dept

Yesterday, the music labels, under the guise of RIAA spinoff SoundExchange, along with Congressional Reps. George Holding and John Conyers, announced some new legislation and a coordinated PR campaign for what they're calling "Project72." The official name of the bill is the "Respecting Senior Performers as Essential Cultural Treasures Act" or the RESPECT Act. There is so much hypocrisy and ridiculousness here that it's difficult to know where to start. However, in short, the labels fought hard to keep the situation the way it is today, and a very large number of the musicians the RIAA rolled out in "support" of this new law -- claiming they just want to get paid by music streaming services -- are musicians who got totally screwed over by RIAA labels in the past. How about a little "respect"?

As we've been reporting, there's been an ongoing legal fight over how to handle pre-1972 sound recordings, because they are technically not covered under federal copyright law. This is because, back in 1909, Congress explicitly excluded sound recordings from the Copyright Act, noting that they didn't believe the Constitution allowed copyright to cover sound recordings (think about that for a second...). A variety of state copyright laws (or the equivalent) popped up to try to fill in the gap. With the 1976 Copyright Act, however, sound records made in 1972 and after were covered, leaving all recordings from pre-1972 in a bit of legal limbo. The copyright office has been debating what to do about this for years. So far, it's actually created something of a cultural disaster, because works that should be in the public domain won't be in the public domain for the rest of our lifetimes.

Meanwhile, many have suggested that a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with this would be to just retroactively say that all pre-1972 sound recordings should be brought under federal copyright law. However, the RIAA itself has fought very hard against this. Why? There are a few reasons, but here are a few big ones: (1) Since the copyright lasts so much longer under state laws, they get to keep the copyright longer. (2) They love to use this issue to claim the DMCA's safe harbors don't apply to any user-generated content site that includes pre-1972 sound recordings. It's a backdoor into gutting the DMCA's safe harbors. (3) Unlike federal copyright law, post-1978, there are no termination rights, allowing the original creator to take back their copyrights.

So it seemed particularly hypocritical last month to see SoundExchange suddenly go all crazy around the claim that music streaming sites don't pay royalties on pre-1972 works. Of course, this is, in part, because of the RIAA's own efforts to keep pre-1972 works from being put under federal copyright law. The various state laws don't include a public performance right, and thus there are no necessary licenses for the streaming of such works -- and that's been widely accepted as the law for years. Until now. If the RIAA wanted to change that, it should have helped move those works under federal copyright law, but it has fought hard against it.

Instead, we get "The RESPECT Act" which would effectively only extend performance rights to pre-1972 sound recordings, while leaving everything else about those works uncovered by federal copyright law. In other words, the RIAA (via SoundExchange) wants to only put the parts of copyright law it likes on pre-1972 sound recordings, while keeping the rest understate laws. And they claim this is about RESPECT?

But here's where it gets really, really ridiculous. To "support" this new legislation from Holding and Conyers, which they're calling "The RESPECT Act," and which they claim is all about getting musicians paid... they trotted out a bunch of famous musicians who support this law.

Project72 kicks off with an open letter, signed by more than 70 recording artists, calling on digital radio to treat all sound recordings equally and to "pay for all the music they play." Artists and bands urging these services to "do right by legacy artists" include: The Allman Brothers Band, The Beach Boys, Roseanne Cash, Melissa Etheridge, Al Green, B.B. King, The Moody Blues, Cyndi Lauper, Martha Reeves, members of Steely Dan, The Supremes, The Temptations, Three Dog Night, and many more.

Note that they say "pay for all the music they play." They do not say to "pay the artists for all the music they play." And that's because SoundExchange and the record labels have a rather long history of not actually paying the artists. Respect!

Hell, you'd think that the RIAA/SoundExchange would have the common sense to check to see whether or not any of the big name stars they brought out had a history of being screwed over and simply not paid by their RIAA labels before attaching them to this campaign. But it appears they did not. Looking through the list of artists who are part of the campaign (beyond just the headliners listed above), we see... quite a few disputes involving the RIAA not paying those artists. All of the following artists signed onto this campaign, despite the fact that RIAA-associated labels have a long history of screwing them over.

The widow of "Dave" in the famous Sam & Dave duo had to sue Atlantic Records for unpaid royalties in 2001.

Gene Chandler's label Vee-Jay, on which he recorded "Duke of Earl," was infamous for not paying royalties and actually went bankrupt when threatened with lawsuits for unpaid royalties.

Mark Farner, of Grand Funk Railroad, was paid $350 a week for the first two years as an "employee" and, after a dispute with the band's "manager," had to give up all the rights to the music anyway (meaning he wouldn't get paid for those songs anyway).

Roger McGuinn, from the Byrds, has told Congress before that he never received royalties (beyond a "modest advance") for the 15 albums he recorded with the band, suggesting that the Byrds are still considered "unrecouped" and any money that might get paid out would just go to his label rather than him anyway.

An early member of Steely Dan has been suing claiming that he hasn't received any SoundExchange royalties he's owed.

And that's just a sampling from the list (didn't have time to go through everyone, so just picked more recognizable names). While yes, they're now arguing for "royalties" from Pandora and from Sirius XM, they might want to look more closely at who they've partnered with to seek those royalties. After all, if the RIAA hadn't blocked efforts to federalize those pre-1972 recordings, this wouldn't even be an issue. And, more to the point, since the labels own the copyrights on most of these songs anyway, the royalties are going to go into their coffers, and as the list above shows, the RIAA labels seem to have nearly perfected the process of not paying artists.

If Reps. Holding and Conyers really wanted to "respect" such artists, perhaps it would focus on encouraging them to actually avoid the record labels who have worked so hard to not pay them in the past.

from the we'll-wait dept

So, we already wrote about the RIAA's big new legal attack on Pandora over royalties on pre-1972 sound recordings. The legal issues there are complex and convoluted, involving a mix of state common law along with federal copyright law. However, the RIAA has clearly decided that it's not going to delve into the nuances there, preferring to go with totally bogus spin. This started with an opinion piece by SoundExchange's CEO, in which he claimed that it was unfair that artists from pre-1972 works weren't getting paid. And with the launch of this lawsuit, the RIAA is trotting out some artists who are making similarly bogus statements:

The RIAA circulated the lawsuit on Thursday along with quotes from artists or their heirs. "It’s an injustice that boggles the mind," says Booker T. & the MG's Steve Cropper. "Just like the programmers who deserve to be paid for their work, I deserve to be paid for mine.”

This depresses me, in part, because I'm a huge Steve Cropper fan -- and have spent tons of money purchasing a variety of music from Booker T. & the MG's over the years (and plenty of other of Cropper's work both at Stax and elsewhere). However, this is a really unfortunate and misleading argument. It's obviously an attempt to hit at those terrible "techies" at Pandora, implying that Pandora's engineering staff continually gets paid for their work.

But it actually underlines how silly the RIAA's argument is here. Because no Pandora programmer expects to get paid for his work 50 years from now. They get paid today to work today. And that's it. If that person leaves Pandora tomorrow, then they don't keep getting paid for it. Nor do they expect their children and grandchildren to keep getting paid for it. Booker T. and the MG's biggest hit, Green Onions, came out in 1962. It would be great if Cropper could point to a programmer who is still getting paid for code he wrote in 1962. Because I would imagine it's not a very big list.

This is also why many of the other quotes the RIAA is pushing concerning this effort are so misleading as well. Buddy Holly's wife, Maria Elena Holly, rightly notes that "Many artists from the 1950s are retired and struggling to support themselves or have families or heirs who are trying to make ends meet." That is, no doubt, true. But that's a different issue. Copyright was never meant to be a welfare system for artists. It was never meant to keep paying them in retirement. It was meant to be an incentive to create, and once it worked, that was it. In fact, under the copyright laws that were in place in 1958 when Buddy Holly released his hit "Everyday," the absolute longest that the copyright on that song could have lasted was 56 years. In other words, when Holly released that song, he knew that by 2014 (hmmm...) that song would be in the public domain. So it seems, well, a bit unseemly to suddenly be whining about it now.

In fact, I'm sure that many programmers from the 1950s are similarly "retired and struggling to support themselves or have families or heirs who are trying to make ends meet." And many of those retired programmers created the underlying structure and systems for today's computers and internet, which has created so much value for the world. But we don't see them and their heirs whining about how the world owes them a living for work they did more than half a century ago.

And this is the problem. There are almost no professions in the world in which you get to do some work (even if it's amazing work) half a century ago, and then still have people paying you for it today. To act like this is some sort of massive offense just seems silly and misguided.

from the after-losing-on-trying-to-shake-them-down dept

Just a few days ago, we wrote about how the record labels were trying to have it both ways. That is, on the one hand, they are arguing in a variety of cases that the DMCA shouldn't apply to pre-1972 sound recordings, while also arguing against any attempt to treat pre-1972 sound recordings the same as if they were under federal copyright law. At the same time, they are claiming that it's somehow unfair that Sirius XM and Pandora aren't paying statutory licensing fees on those very same pre-1972 recordings.

Having already sued Sirius XM over the issue last fall, the RIAA's record labels have now targeted a similar lawsuit at Pandora. The lawsuit itself is highly misleading, taking statements from Pandora totally out of context (the labels have a habit of doing this). The most obnoxious of these misrepresentations is the RIAA's claim that Pandora recently stated in SEC filings that there's a risk factor if the company is "required to obtain licenses from individual sound recording copyright owners for the reproduction and public performance of pre-1972 sound recordings."

The RIAA presents this as if it's Pandora trying to get out of paying. But that's not what Pandora is saying at all. It's noting that because pre-1972 works are not covered by the various rates that it pays which are set by the Copyright Royalty Board, in order to secure the rates, it would need to negotiate individually with every copyright holder for the right to stream those works in every single state. But it's noting that as a risk factor -- because, as Sirius has pointed out in its own response to the similar lawsuit, decades have gone by and the labels have never been asking for licenses for performances of pre-1972 works. And those works have been used for years, license free, by TV and radio broadcasters, bars, restaurants and a variety of other places. The real risk is that Pandora, which has relied on the fact that it can take compulsory rates, would then suddenly have to negotiate with everyone, which would be a massive headache. And this is the mess caused by the weird way in which pre-1972 sound recordings are treated.

Again, those works are not covered by federal copyright laws, which include specific rights over performances of works, which was something of a new concept when it was added to federal copyright law. The various state laws that these works are covered by are generally common law concepts around misappropriation and unfair competition. So the big question is whether or not "performing" a work falls under such common law concepts. Historically, these claims were mostly focused on making unauthorized copies. Performing the work has generally been considered a separate issue. This makes it a bit questionable that the RIAA is now suddenly seeking to reinterpret a big swath of history around how those works were legally used -- which also raises a concern about "laches" or how timely these lawsuits are. The RIAA has had decades to complain about these practices, and is just doing so now...

And, of course, remember that this is all happening just a month or so after the publishing arms of the very same labels were found to have been colluding unfairly to jack up Pandora's rates. Basically, the legacy recording industry players are now looking for just about any way possible to make Pandora pay even more. This isn't a surprise. It's how the industry has always worked. When they're struggling to figure out ways to make money, they look at anyone successful and assume it's their fault that the legacy players are making less money. So, rather than innovating, they try to find legal ways to force more money out of the innovators and into their own hands. This is just the latest example in a very long line of such cases.

from the are-they-the-same-or-different? dept

Yet another story of hypocrisy by the recording industry? Why yes, indeed. For years now, we've been covering the issue of pre-1972 sound recordings. When Congress wrote the 1909 Copyright Act, it did not cover sound recordings, because Congress didn't think that sound recordings qualified for copyright. In a statement released by Congress with the Act, it said it deliberately chose not to cover sound recordings, believing that they weren't covered by the Constitutional limitation on "writings" for copyright protection:

Indeed, the report released with the Copyright Act expressly stated that Congress did not intend to protect sound recordings: "It is not the intention of the committee to extend the right of copyright to the mechanical reproductions themselves, but only to give the composer or copyright proprietor the control, in accordance with the provisions of the bill, of the manufacture and use of such devices." According to one commentator, Congress had two principal concerns about sound recordings, leading it to decline to protect them. First, Congress wondered about the constitutional validity of such protection. The Constitution allows Congress to protect "writings," and Congress was uncertain as to whether a sound recording could constitute a writing. Second, Congress worried that allowing producers to exclusively control both the musical notation and the sound recording could lead to the creation of a music monopoly.

That latter concern certainly was prescient. When Congress did a massive overhaul of copyright law in 1976, the recording industry was a much more powerful lobby, and so sound recordings were included. However, in the years between 1909 and 1976, many states had created their own (often bizarre) "state" copyrights to protect recordings. Rather than deal with this in an intelligent way, Congress basically said the new federal copyright rules would only apply to songs recorded in 1972 or after, and pre-1972 recordings would remain in a bizarre limbo. This has created a whole host of legal issues, and the Copyright Office has been trying to figure out what to do about this for years.

However, it appears that the recording industry would like it both ways. When it's to their advantage, they claim that pre-1972 recordings should be treated just like modern song recordings. And when it's not to their advantage, they insist that pre-1972 recordings should be treated wholly differently. In various hearings about the issue, the RIAA has been one of the most vocal in arguing against treating pre-1972 recordings as if they're covered by federal copyright law. And, at the same time, they've argued in court repeatedly that the DMCA safe harbors don't apply to pre-1972 recordings, making various music storage lockers liable for any such recordings they host. Some courts have rejected this theory, while others have accepted it. Either way, the recording industry has been pretty adamant that pre-1972 recordings should be treated differently, so they can sue whomever they want.

And yet... when various streaming music companies recognize this fact, and note that pre-1972 recordings aren't covered under statutory licensing regimes... the recording industry freaks out. Michael Huppe, the President of SoundExchange -- an organization created by the RIAA -- is writing in Billboard magazine about how unfair it is that streaming services like Sirius XM and Pandora don't pay statutory rates for pre-1972 recordings. Huppe complains that "this is not fair" and notes:

It's a matter of simple fairness to offer equal treatment for all sound recordings.

Okay. If that's true, then why aren't SoundExchange and the RIAA out there in support of federalizing the copyright in pre-1972 recordings? Why aren't SoundExchange and the RIAA agreeing to the fact that the DMCA's safe harbors apply equally to pre-1972 recordings? I'm all for "equal treatment for all sound recordings" as well, but someone ought to point out to SoundExchange and the RIAA: you first.

from the DMCA-goes-from-bad-to-worse dept

The court ruling earlier this year that found in favor of Universal Music Group against Grooveshark hinged on an argument made by the plaintiff that the DMCA (and its safe harbors) doesn't apply to pre-1972 recordings, thanks to some clumsy wording within the law itself. While that may not have been the intent of the law, the wording of the law can be interpreted that way -- an argument the court felt was persuasive enough to rule in favor of UMG. Other courts haven't been so sure, but the possibility that the DMCA doesn't apply has resulted in a lot of concerns... and a whole bunch of lawsuits.

Arista, Sony, Zomba and LaFace Records sued United Airlines, InFlight Productions and RightsCom, in Federal Court. InFlight and RightsCom are both based in London.

The record labels claim the defendants work "in concert" to load copyrighted music onto servers that are installed on United airplanes, "where they are used to transmit performances of plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings and music videos to passengers."

The copyright violations are for music recorded before 1972, the labels say. Thirteen pages attached to the complaint contain more than 600 songs whose copyrights the defendants allegedly violate, by artists including Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, Aretha Franklin, Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin, and Jimi Hendrix.

The list of allegedly infringing tracks is likely pulled from United/InFlight's own playlists which seem to change periodically. The labels claim "thousands" of violations on songs that cost "millions" to produce and are seeking to collect both statutory and compensatory damages, as well as "unjust profits" and court costs.

It would seem that both Rightscom and InFlight -- both being in the licensing business -- would have nailed down their end of bargain with these labels several years ago. However, given the fact that a.) the New York court decided the DMCA doesn't apply to pre-1972 music and b.) a blanket license would very likely not satisfy the various iterations of state copyright laws, the labels now have a potentially lucrative vein to mine.

Notably, there's no accusation that any recordings post-1972 were infringed. If this was a case where licensing violations occurred or a required license was not in place, we would expect the claims of infringement to cover everything in these labels' catalogs. The fact that the claim is limited to pre-1972 music only indicates that the labels, with the help of Bart, are seeking to exploit this DMCA ruling before this loophole is closed by a ruling from a higher court or a rewrite by legislators.

Previous to this, the legal activity revolving around pre-1972 recordings has been aimed at site operators whose sites contain user-uploaded infringing content, with labels (UMG, EMI) claiming the DMCA safe harbors don't apply to these recordings. This new move, directly suing companies who make use of the content themselves, shows there's more than one problem with the New York County Supreme Court's decision in favor of UMG back in April.